Skip to main content
Food & Nutrition Research logoLink to Food & Nutrition Research
. 2013 Dec 23;57:10.3402/fnr.v57i0.19676. doi: 10.3402/fnr.v57i0.19676

Thermic effect of a meal and appetite in adults: an individual participant data meta-analysis of meal-test trials

Anne-Marie Ravn 1,*, Nikolaj Ture Gregersen 1, Robin Christensen 2, Lone Graasbøl Rasmussen 1, Ole Hels 3, Anita Belza 1, Anne Raben 1, Thomas Meinert Larsen 1, Søren Toubro 4, Arne Astrup 1
PMCID: PMC3873760  PMID: 24376394

Abstract

Background

Thermic effect of a meal (TEF) has previously been suggested to influence appetite.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess whether there is an association between appetite and TEF. Second, to examine whether protein intake is associated with TEF or appetite.

Design

Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis on studies were performed at the Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Five randomized meal-test studies, with 111 participants, were included. The included studies measured energy expenditure (EE) in respiration chambers and pre- and postprandial appetite sensations using Visual Analog Scales (VAS). The primary meta-analysis was based on a generic-inverse variance random-effects model, pooling individual study Spearman's correlation coefficients, resulting in a combined r-value with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The I 2 value quantifies the proportion (%) of the variation in point estimates due to among-study differences.

Results

The IPD meta-analysis found no association between satiety and TEF expressed as the incremental area under the curve (TEFiAUC) (r=0.06 [95% CI −0.16 to 0.28], P=0.58; I 2=15.8%). Similarly, Composite Appetite Score (CAS) was not associated with TEFiAUC (r=0.08 [95% CI −0.12 to 0.28], P=0.45; I 2=0%). Posthoc analyses showed no association between satiety or CAS and TEF expressed as a percentage of energy intake (EI) (P>0.49) or TEF expressed as a percentage of baseline EE (P>0.17). When adjusting for covariates, TEFiAUC was associated with protein intake (P=0.0085).

Conclusions

This IPD meta-analysis found no evidence supporting an association between satiety or CAS and TEF at protein intakes ∼15 E% (range 11–30 E%).

Keywords: thermic effect of a meal, diet-induced thermogenesis, appetite, energy expenditure, satiety, Composite Appetite Score


Human appetite involves repeated increases and decreases in the desire to eat and is controlled by psychological, physiological, and biochemical mechanisms (1, 2). Thermic effect of a meal (TEF) is the increase in energy expenditure (EE) engendered by the energy used in the postprandial period in the process of absorbing, metabolizing, and storing ingested nutrients (3, 4).

TEF has previously been suggested as one of the mechanisms that influences appetite sensations, including satiety (5, 6). Strominger and Brobeck (5) hypothesized that increased body temperature, caused by both environmental temperature and the extra heat released during the digestion of food (i.e. TEF), could result in a reduced food intake. Later, Westerterp-Plantenga et al. (6) suggested that the basis of the association between TEF and satiety might be that the increased EE at rest after food intake causes increased oxygen consumption and body temperature. This could then give rise to the body feeling deprived of oxygen and be translated into a sensation of satiety (6). The same relationship between oxygen deprivation and appetite has previously been observed in mountain climbers at high altitudes, although the causal association has not been thoroughly investigated (7, 8). Bearing the above in mind, it is of interest to consider the effect of diet, such as particular macronutrients, on TEF and consequently on appetite regulation.

Studies on appetite and thermogenesis have shown protein to be superior to other macronutrients in promoting satiety (2, 7). In addition, protein causes higher TEF (20–30% of the energy content of ingested protein) compared to carbohydrate (5–10%) and fat (0–3%) (9). This is due to the large amount of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) used in the postprandial period in the process of metabolizing and storing protein (9). As protein is the most satiating and thermogenic nutrient, the association between TEF and appetite suggested by Strominger and Brobeck in 1953 could be plausible (5).

Even a small positive association between TEF and satiety could have clinical implications during weight loss. We therefore undertook an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis on studies previously conducted at our department, to investigate whether an association between the perception of appetite and TEF exists, and whether protein intake is an influential factor.

Present investigation

Methods

Eligibility criteria

Studies conducted at the Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, from 1992 to 2006 were available for inclusion in this study. Studies were included if they contained: 1) data on at least 24-h EE measurements in whole-body respiration chambers; 2) baseline measurements and a minimum of three measurements of appetite sensations after a dinner meal using visual analog scales (VAS); and 3) detailed descriptions of energy intake (EI). To obtain individual energy balance during the chamber stay, EI provided was based on equations estimating EE. In studies where active components (e.g. medication, enriched foods, etc.) were tested, only the control measurements done without these active components were included in this IPD meta-analysis. If more than one measurement was carried out on the same participant, and if both measurements matched the criteria above, only the last measurement was included. Finally, all included participants had to be healthy, non-smoking, and non-elite athletes (less than 10 h of exercise a week).

Respiratory measurements

EE was measured by indirect whole-body calorimetry in a 14.7 m3 open-circuit respiration chamber at the Faculty of Science (University of Copenhagen, Denmark). The design of the chambers has been described in detail elsewhere (10). In the included studies, oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange including urinary nitrogen measurements were used to calculate EE. Spontaneous physical activity (SPA) in the respiration chambers was assessed using two microwave radar devices. The within-subject variation for 24-h EE measured in the chambers is 2.3% and the within-subject variation for 1-h measurements of basal EE is 5% (10). Resting metabolic rate (RMR) was measured in a resting period of 30 min just before the dinner meal was served.

Visual analog scales

VAS were used for measuring the subjective appetite sensations of satiety, hunger, fullness, and prospective food intake. The scale consists of a horizontal line (100 mm in length) with the most positive and most negative sensations at opposite ends of the line. Participants mark the line at a point corresponding to their perceived appetite at a given time. For satiety, the question was ‘How satisfied do you feel?’, and the text anchors were ‘I am completely empty’ and ‘I cannot eat another bite’. For fullness, hunger and prospective food intake the questions were ‘How full do you feel?’ (text anchors: ‘Not at all full’ and ‘Totally full’), ‘How hungry do you feel?’ (text anchors: ‘I am not hungry at all’ and ‘I have never been hungrier’) and ‘How much do you think you could eat?’ (text anchors: ‘Nothing at all’ and ‘A lot’), respectively.

The reproducibility and validity of VAS have previously been examined by Flint et al. (11), who concluded that VAS provide a reliable tool for a quantitative measurement of subjective sensations such as appetite in single meal-test trials. Finally, Composite Appetite Score (CAS) was included in the study. This measure reflects the four VAS questions and was included in the study as a summary measure of appetite. CAS was calculated using the formula inspired by Anderson et al. (12): CAS=((100 − satiety)+(100 − fullness) + hunger + prospective food intake)/4.

Data

Data were acquired by contacting the principal investigators, searching old records, and contacting the research department where the studies were conducted. The data of all of the included participants were checked for duplicates and were checked twice (by a second reviewer) before being included in the IPD meta-analysis. Data were extracted from previously collected data and were treated as confidential.

Data on appetite (VAS scores on satiety and CAS [including satiety, fullness, hunger, and prospective food intake]) just before ingestion of the dinner meal and until 180 min after the meal were extracted from each of the included studies. Similarly, data on EE measurements 30 min before the dinner and until 180 min postprandially were also extracted. Furthermore, data on sex, age, height, body weight, EI, fat-free mass, fat mass, body fat percentage, and tea/coffee ingested after dinner (yes/no) were also collected. VAS was calculated as the incremental area under or over the curve (iAUC and iAOC, respectively) using VAS measurements filled out immediately before the dinner as baseline. The examined appetite measures were SatietyiAUC and CAS.

TEF was calculated in three different ways. The primary TEF measure was calculated as the incremental area under the curve for resting EE after the dinner meal with RMR used as the baseline measure (TEFiAUC) and expressed in kJ/3 h. For the purpose of sensitivity analysis, we also scrutinized other ways to interpret TEF: (1) TEF as the increase in EE above baseline expressed as a percentage of EI in dinner meal (TEF%EI); and (2) TEF as the increase in EE above baseline expressed as a percentage of baseline (TEF%) as secondary TEF measures. These TEF measures were included in posthoc analyses of satiety and CAS. We preferred the dinner meal as this normally included 30–40% of the total EI during the stay.

Quality of included studies

All included studies were randomized controlled trials with either parallel (1316) or crossover (17) design. Four of the studies used either a single- (15, 17) or double-blinded design (13, 14). Two of the studies were placebo-controlled trials testing potential drug candidates (13, 14). The remaining three studies all tested different diets against each other (1517).

Statistical analysis

The raw data included from each study were analyzed separately to acquire summary statistics in the form of Spearman's r-coefficient and the corresponding standard error (SE), reflecting the level of statistical significance in the individual tests for association in the different eligible trials. The SE for the non-parametric Spearman's r-coefficient (SE[r]) was estimated from the (two-sided) P-value converted into a standard normal score (Z), which enabled an estimate of SE[r] using Wald-test methodology (Z[r]= r/SE[r]). All results are reported with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), that were calculated as the estimate for coefficient r±1.96*SE. For the purpose of sensitivity analysis, these Wald-test-converted SEs were re-confirmed when estimated using the approach proposed by Thompson et al. (18) using the Fisher-transformed correlation (and SE) derived from the reported P-value and the sample size.

The summary analyses were computed using homogeneity statistics to evaluate the agreement of the individual trial results with a fixed-effect meta-analytic summary (19). However, for the overall inference we used standard random-effects meta-analysis (20) as a default option; the fixed-effect analysis would apply as a sensitivity analysis in the case of inconsistency. We estimated inconsistency by calculating the I 2 statistic (21), which describes the percentage of total variation across trials that is attributable to heterogeneity rather than to chance (22).

We performed a number of pre-specified sensitivity analyses based on a statistically more advanced hierarchical model. At level one in the hierarchical model, participants were compared with others from the same study (i.e. trial numbers were applied as clusters), enabling the entire dataset to be analyzed as if it originated from a single study (23). A random coefficient model was applied to assess the five different possible linear associations simultaneously (24). Random coefficient models emerge as natural mixed-model extensions of simple linear regression models in a hierarchical (nested) data setup. As we treated each study as a random sample, it was natural to incorporate this in the model by assuming the subject effects (trial intercepts and slopes) to be random (25). These models enabled inclusion of potentially confounding factors included in Table 1; factors and covariates that could influence the overall summary association across included studies (see Supplementary file). These hierarchical models derived from maximum likelihood estimates were performed using the SAS software (version 9.2).

Table 1.

Summary of study characteristics of all participants

Variable Raben et al. (15) Hansen et al. (13) Mikkelsen et al. (17) Larsen et al. (14) Rasmussen et al. (16) Total
Publication year 2002 1999 2000 2002 2007
N 19 32 12 10 38 111
Males, no. (%) 3 (16%) 7 (22%) 12 (100%) 10 (100%) 16 (42%) 48 (43%)
Age, years 35.4±10.7 (20.0; 50.0) 38.5±9.05 (20.0; 54.0) 25.6±3.2 (21.0; 31.0) 36.1±7.6 (25.0; 47.0) 27.1±5.2 (18.0; 36.0) 32.3±9.4 (18.0; 54.0)
Caffeine (yes/no1) Yes No No Yes No
SPA (%/h2) 7.4±3.6 (3.7; 19.3) 7.9±3.9 (2.9; 21.3) 8.0±1.7 ( 6.1; 11.2) 8.3±2.7 (4.7; 12.9) 6.3±2.0 (2.7; 10.8) 7.3±3.1 (2.7; 21.3)
BMI (kg/m2) 28.2±2.4 (24.3; 32.6) 33.8±2.7 (30.4; 40.0) 29.2±1.8 (26.8; 31.9) 31.3±2.1 (28.3; 34.3) 28.2±2.4 (22.5; 33.4) 30.2±3.4 (22.5; 40.0)
EI dinner (MJ3) 3.38±0.40 (2.81; 4.39) 4.26±0.48 (3.30; 5.18) 2.95±1.07 (1.07; 4.23) 5.91±0.39 (5.44; 6.43) 5.31±0.72 (4.23; 7.05) 4.48±1.14 (1.07; 7.05)
EI protein (MJ4) 0.48±0.06 (0.40; 0.62) 0.65±0.07 (0.51; 0.79) 0.68±0.35 (0.12; 1.24) 0.78±0.05 (0.71; 0.85) 0.80±0.11 (0.63; 1.05) 0.69±0.18 (0.20; 1.24)
Satiety iAUC5 7102.1±3212.3 (0; 11010.0) 5262.4±3171.7 (0; 11370.0) 6506.3±1675.3 (2535.0; 8535.0) 7911.0±2541.0 (3090.0; 11670.0) 8698.5±3092.39 (170.0; 15015.0) 7097.9±3237.711 (0; 15015.0)
CAS iAOC6 7057.9±2538.4 (3037.5; 10635.0) 5431.2±2952.5 (511.9; 10755.0) 6699.9±2294.4 (2267.9; 10338.8) 7101.7±2340.38 (3052.5; 11580.0) 8439.5±3074.510 (1372.8; 14340.0) 6986.9±3012.312 (511.9; 14340.0)
TEF iAUC7 131.5±93.1 (1.0; 318.0) 168.0±91.1 (0; 482.0) 188.4±128.8 (46.0; 402.0) 168.2±124.4 (20.0; 398.0) 172.7±92.2 (20.0; 498.0) 165.6±99.1 (0; 498.0)

Values are mean±SD (min; max) unless otherwise stated.

1

One cup of tea/coffee containing caffeine was served during the measurement of diet-induced thermogenesis.

2

Spontaneous physical activity during the first 3 h after the dinner meal in percent per hour.

3

Energy intake from dinner meal in MJ.

4

Energy intake from protein in dinner meal in MJ.

5

The incremental area under the curve for satiety measured by visual analog scales.

6

Incremental area over the curve for the summary measure Composite Appetite Score. CAS=(satiety + fullness + hunger + prospective food intake)/4.

7

Diet-induced thermogenesis in kJ/3 h (incremental area under the curve for postprandial energy expenditure).

8

n=9 participants.

9

n=36 participants.

10

n=35 participants.

11

n=109 participants.

12

n=107 participants.

Results

Inclusion of studies

A flowchart of the selection and inclusion process is given in Fig. 1. Twenty-eight studies included measurements from respiration chambers as a part of the investigations conducted at Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports in the period from 1992 to 2006 and therefore fulfilled these two inclusion criteria. However, 20 of these studies were excluded due to the following factors: less than three VAS measurements after the dinner meal (10, 2641), ad libitum dinner meal (42), EE measurements shorter than 24 h (43), or the participants had hyperthyroidism (44). Furthermore, three studies were excluded because it was not possible to locate data (45). Thus, five studies were found eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. These five studies (1317) included a total of 280 participants. In two of the five included studies, measurements in respiration chambers were carried out only on a subgroup of the included participants, thus 149 of the 280 participants were not measured in the respiration chambers and data on these participants was excluded. Furthermore, 20 participants were excluded due to missing data on EI, VAS scores, and body mass index (BMI). As a result, 111 healthy participants were included in this IPD meta-analysis. Study characteristics for each of the five included studies are listed in Table 1. Forty-eight of the 111 (43%) included participants were men. The mean (±SD) age of all the participants was 32±9 years and the mean BMI was 30±3 kg/m2.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Flowchart of the selection and inclusion process.

Design of included studies

The five included studies were randomized trials testing either different types of meals or medication in the respiration chamber. The participants were standardized with regard to exercise and alcohol intake from 10.00 pm the night before the EE measurements. The dinner meal was served at 18:00–19:15 after 3–6 h of fasting. The macronutrient compositions of the dinner meals are shown in Table 2. The dinner meal was followed by a postprandial period of 180 min with appetite and EE measurements (EE measurements from (15) are unpublished). The protocols for the stays in the respiration chamber in the included studies were not substantially different from each other. Physical activity was restricted in the hours prior to the measurements. All participants were sedentary for at least 100 min prior to and during the 180-min postprandial EE measurements. The only important difference was the ingestion of caffeine (in the form of one cup of tea or coffee) after the dinner meal during the EE measurement (40% of the included studies) (1317). The Municipal Ethical Committee of Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, Denmark approved all included studies.

Table 2.

Macronutrient composition in the dinner meals served in the respiration chambers

Reference n Carbohydrate E (%) Protein E (%) Fat E (%)
Raben et al. (15) 19 50 13 37
Hansen et al. (13) 32 48 15 37
Mikkelsen et al. (17)1 4 42 29 29
4 43 28 29
4 61 11 28
Larsen et al. (14) 10 52 13 35
Rasmussen et al. (16)2 19 45 15 40
19 60 15 25
1

Total n=12 participants.

2

Total n=38 participants.

Appetite measures and TEF

Satiety and TEFiAUC

As illustrated in Fig. 2, the IPD meta-analysis found no overall association between satiety and TEFiAUC, with the Spearman's r-coefficients varying from −0.36 to +0.33, all being statistically non-significant (P>0.18). Pooling the data from these five individual trials produced a combined Spearman's r-coefficient of 0.06 (95% CI: −0.16 to 0.28), providing no support to the hypothesis of an association between satiety and TEF (P=0.58). This result was based on a small amount of heterogeneity, with a negligible degree of inconsistency (I 2= 15.8%). For sensitivity, we compare this with the more naïve approach – combining all participant data into one correlation analysis (i.e. ignoring the study structure), also resulting in an overall statistically non-significant Spearman's r-coefficient (r=0.079, P=0.42, N=109 observations). Inclusion of covariates did not affect the association between satiety and TEFiAUC (see Supplementary file).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Forest plot of Spearman's r-coefficients. Every dot represents the individual study's r-value with 95% CI indicated by horizontal lines. The overall estimate (pooled random-effects model) from the meta-analysis and its CI are shown at the bottom of each subplot.

CAS and TEFiAUC

There was also no association between CAS and TEFiAUC (P=0.45); the pooled Spearman's r-coefficient from these five trials was r=0.08 (95% CI: −0.12 to 0.28). As presented in Fig. 2, the r-values ranged from −0.20 to +0.31, all being statistically non-significant (P>0.20), and apparently with no inconsistency (I 2=0%). For sensitivity, combining all participant data into one correlation analysis also resulted in an overall statistically non-significant Spearman's r-coefficient (r=0.051, P=0.60, N=107 observations). Inclusion of covariates did not affect the association between CAS and TEFiAUC (see Supplementary file).

Associations between TEFiAUC, satiety, CAS, and EI from protein

Fig. 3 illustrates the three different associations with the protein intake in each study; upper part being in relation to TEFiAUC; middle being in relation to satiety; lower in relation to CAS.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Forest plot of Spearman's r-coefficients. Every dot represents the individual study's r-value with 95% CI indicated by horizontal lines. The overall estimate (pooled random-effects model) from the meta-analysis and its CI are shown at the bottom of each.

No association between TEFiAUC and protein intake was found (P=0.57), with the pooled Spearman's r-coefficient being 0.08 (95% CI: −0.20 to 0.36); with a moderate inconsistency across studies (I 2=47.8%). Combining all participant data into one correlation analysis (in analogy to a fixed-effects model) also resulted in an overall statistically non-significant Spearman's r-coefficient (r=0.08, P= 0.39, N=111 observations). However, we note that one study (15) showed a tendency toward a statistically significant association (r=0.43, P=0.068, N=19 observations). An association between TEFiAUC and protein intake was observed (P=0.009) when including the covariates: Sex (P=0.01), caffeine intake (P<0.05), and EI in the dinner meal (P=0.02) (see Supplementary file).

Relating the satiety with protein intake did not indicate any association (P=0.75), as the pooled analysis showed a combined Spearman's r-coefficient of −0.03 (95% CI: −0.24 to 0.17); with a low degree of inconsistency (I 2=5.8%). The individual study results ranged from −0.24 to +0.38 with no indication of statistically significant results (P>0.15). Inclusion of covariates did not affect the association between satiety and protein intake (see Supplementary file).

Finally, for CAS in relation to the protein intake, the Spearman's r-coefficients varied from −0.30 to +0.34, all being statistically non-significant (P>0.18). Pooling the data from these five individual trials produced a combined Spearman's r-coefficient of −0.06 (95% CI: −0.26 to 0.14), providing no support to the hypothesis of an association between CAS and TEF (P=0.57). Inclusion of covariates did not affect the association between CAS and protein intake (see Supplementary file).

Secondary TEF measures and appetite measures

Posthoc correlation analysis between TEF%EI and satiety with all participant data combined resulted in an overall non-significant Spearman's r-coefficient (r=0.066, P= 0.49, N=109 observations). Similarly, correlation analysis between TEF% and CAS also produced a non-significant Spearman's r-coefficient (r=0.054, P= 0.58, N=107 observations).

Posthoc correlation analysis between TEF% and satiety including participant data from all included studies resulted in a non-significant Spearman's r-coefficient (r=0.134, P= 0.17, N=109 observations). Finally, similar analysis between TEF% and CAS showed a non-significant Spearman's r-coefficient (r=0.112, P= 0.25, N=107 observations).

Discussion

We found no association between TEFiAUC and the appetite measures, satiety, and CAS. Similarly, no associations were seen between TEF%EI or TEF% and the appetite measures.

Previously, four studies examined the association between sensations of appetite and changes in EE following a meal (6, 4648). Westerterp-Plantenga et al. (6) investigated this issue and found significant correlations between the differences (due to different macronutrient compositions in the test-meals) in both satiety and hunger over a 24-h period, and differences in TEF (expressed as 24-h TEF in kJ/day and TEF%EI). Another study by Westerterp-Plantenga et al. (48) observed a positive correlation between satiety and TEF%EI, but no association was found between hunger and TEF%EI. Crovetti et al. (46) found a positive correlation between fullness and TEF (expressed as AUC), but not between satiety and the desire to eat and TEF. Raben et al. (47) documented a positive correlation between satiety and TEF%EI, and between fullness and TEF%EI. However, no correlation was found between VAS measurements of hunger and prospective food intake (47). Overall, fewer than half of the appetite measures in these studies were correlated with TEF and thus the results are inconclusive.

Our results disclosed no association between TEF and satiety or CAS no matter which calculation method was used for TEF. This could be due to the fact that no association between protein and satiety was found. The lack of association between protein and satiety is supported by Raben et al., who found no difference in satiety when meals similar in energy densities but high in protein (31.8% of energy), fat, carbohydrate, and alcohol were ingested (49). Nevertheless, a recent review by Veldhorst et al. (7) concluded that the acute satiating effect of protein in single meals is present with a content of 25–81% of energy from protein. The mean (±SD) protein intake in our study was 15.6% (± 3.8) of energy from protein, so this could be too low to trigger a satiating effect. Due to the previously reported effect of protein on EE, we adjusted for the protein content in the statistical analysis (50, 51). Only 8 of the 111 participants in the present study received meals containing >20% of energy from protein and therefore no subgroup analysis was conducted on groups differing in protein intake. The results of this study may thus only be applicable to participants ingesting meals with normal protein contents (∼15% of energy from protein). In other words, the (lack of) associations between satiety and TEF may depend on the amount of protein ingested.

In the primary analyses of TEF and protein, the test for overall effect showed no association (P=0.57). However, including potentially confounding factors in the model resulted in an overall statistically significant Spearman's r-coefficient (P=0.009). This association between protein and TEF is supported by existing evidence. The reported TEF for protein is 20–30% of energy content compared to fat (0–3%) and carbohydrates (5–10%) (3). Thus, the higher the protein content of the meal, the larger the effect on EE (50, 51).

The participants in the present study had an average BMI of 30 kg/m2. One hundred of the 111 included subjects were in weight-stable conditions with study specific mean weight changes of no more than −0.2 kg±1.2 kg to 1.2 kg±3.9 over 28 days to 6 months. Only 11 of the included subjects had a weight loss of no more than 13.1±0.6 kg over 8 weeks prior to the measurements in the respiration chambers (1317, 52). Numerous studies have reported a lower TEF in obese participants (5355). However, other studies have reported no difference in TEF in lean and obese participants (5658). A posthoc t-test analysis comparing the lower and upper quartiles for TEF showed a significant higher body weight in the upper quartile for TEF (P=0.02) but no difference between the quartiles was found for body fat (P=0.18). Whether obesity affects the association between satiety and TEF is also uncertain. This could possibly complicate the comparison of the present study with studies performed on normal-weight participants with a BMI < 25 kg/m2.

TEF has been reported to last longer than the 3-h measuring period used in this study and this could be a limitation. However, studies report that the major part of TEF takes place during the first few hours after ingestion of a meal (59, 60). Although these studies used meals containing less energy than those in our study, we propose that the 3-h period in our study still constitutes a valid measure of TEF. One study has suggested a measuring period of 6-h to increase the precision of the TEF measurement, but the highly non-significant results (P>0.48) in the present study makes it unlikely that a longer measurement period would alter these findings significantly (59).

TEF was measured in respiration chambers that contain large volumes of air which has to be exchanged continuously to produce valid measures of EE and small differences in TEF may therefore be difficult to detect in respiration chambers (61). This could limit the precision of the short-term (3-h) measurements of EE used in this study. However, based on experience from numerous respiration chamber studies at our department, we know that the chambers have a short response time: about 15 min for measuring larger differences in EE (bicycling) and about 60 min for detecting smaller differences in EE. Furthermore, the participants are not stressed in the chambers, in contrast to hood and mask measurement systems that may in particular affect their measured R-value. We therefore consider the respiration chambers to be a reliable and useful method for the purposes of this IPD meta-analysis.

All five included studies were conducted at our department and the respiration chambers and the study protocols were relatively similar, which implies a small variation between the studies. Furthermore, all protocols stated that the participants were sedentary during the 180-min postprandial EE measurement, meaning that physical activity during the TEF measuring period did not influence the results. However, this means that the results of these studies may all be affected by the same methodological issues. Similarly, it also increases the risk of our inclusion criteria being biased (62). Nevertheless, the present IPD meta-analysis is the first collection of a large sample of data on appetite and TEF in participants ingesting a meal containing approximately 15% of energy from protein.

If, in contrast to what our meta-analysis suggests, there actually exists an association between satiety and TEF, the question is whether this association is causal, or just the result of a protein induced concomitant elevation in both satiety and TEF, that is, temporal co-variation. The associations between protein and satiety (7, 46, 63, 64) and between protein and TEF (6365), respectively, are both well documented. Furthermore, the higher the protein content, the higher both satiety and TEF will be. Nevertheless, the association between satiety and TEF, or the mechanisms potentially responsible for this possible association, is currently not well documented. Westerterp-Plantenga et al. (6) suggest that the increased oxygen consumption (and body temperature) associated with TEF may result in decreased oxygen availability, which may then induce satiety through unknown mechanisms. The authors based this suggestion on studies showing that high altitude, exercise, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which are all characterized by limited oxygen availability, are all associated with higher satiety scores. However, in our study it is an unlikely explanation since the magnitude of TEF rarely reaches levels of oxygen shortage. The design of the present study does not allow for the investigation of causal associations and therefore, this requires further research in the future. Future studies should also consider the ranges of protein intake, the length of the EE measurement session, the number and frequency of appetite measures, and possible measurements of satiety-related hormones.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the IPD meta-analysis found no association between satiety or CAS and TEF at protein intakes ∼15 E% of the meal (range 11–30 E%). The calculation method for TEF did not influence these findings. However, even though our study did not show any associations, this does not rule out the possibility that associations may be present at higher protein intakes.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Charlotte Kostecki and John G. Lind for their assistance. The authors’ responsibilities were as follows: A.-M. R., N. T. G. and L. G. R. collected and prepared the data for analyses. R. C. conducted all the statistical analyses. A.-M. R. and N. T. G. wrote the manuscript. All authors helped in interpreting the data and reviewing the article.

To access the appendices to this article please see Supplementary files under Article Tools online

Conflict of interest and funding

The authors have no conflict of interest to report. This research was supported by the OPUS project “Optimal well-being, development and health for Danish children through a healthy New Nordic Diet” (OPUS is funded by a grant from the Nordea Foundation) and by EC FP6 Diabesity project (LSHM-CT-2003-503041). The “Oak Foundation” is thanked for providing economic support to The Parker Institute.

References

  • 1.Blundell J. Pharmacological approaches to appetite suppression. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 1991;12:147–57. doi: 10.1016/0165-6147(91)90532-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Blundell JE, Lawton CL, Cotton JR, Macdiarmid JI. Control of human appetite: implications for the intake of dietary fat. Annu Rev Nutr. 1996;16:285–319. doi: 10.1146/annurev.nu.16.070196.001441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Tappy L. Thermic effect of food and sympathetic nervous system activity in humans. Reprod Nutr Dev. 1996;36:391–7. doi: 10.1051/rnd:19960405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Westerterp KR. Diet induced thermogenesis. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2004;1:5. doi: 10.1186/1743-7075-1-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Strominger JL, Brobeck JR. A mechanism of regulation of food intake. Yale J Biol Med. 1953;25:383–90. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Westerterp-Plantenga MS, Rolland V, Wilson SA, Westerterp KR. Satiety related to 24 h diet-induced thermogenesis during high protein/carbohydrate vs. high fat diets measured in a respiration chamber. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1999;53:495–502. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1600782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Veldhorst M, Smeets A, Soenen S, Hochstenbach-Waelen A, Hursel R, Diepvens K, et al. Protein-induced satiety: effects and mechanisms of different proteins. Physiol Behav. 2008;94:300–7. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Westerterp-Plantenga MS, Westerterp KR, Rubbens M, Verwegen CR, Richelet JP, Gardette B. Appetite at “high altitude” [Operation Everest III (Comex-‘97)]: a simulated ascent of Mount Everest. J Appl Physiol. 1999;87:391–9. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1999.87.1.391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.van Baak MA. Meal-induced activation of the sympathetic nervous system and its cardiovascular and thermogenic effects in man. Physiol Behav. 2008;94:178–86. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.12.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Astrup A, Thorbek G, Lind J, Isaksson B. Prediction of 24-h energy expenditure and its components from physical characteristics and body composition in normal-weight humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;52:777–83. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/52.5.777. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Flint A, Raben A, Blundell JE, Astrup A. Reproducibility, power and validity of visual analogue scales in assessment of appetite sensations in single test meal studies. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000;24:38–48. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Anderson GH, Catherine NL, Woodend DM, Wolever TM. Inverse association between the effect of carbohydrates on blood glucose and subsequent short-term food intake in young men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;76:1023–30. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/76.5.1023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hansen DL, Toubro S, Stock MJ, Macdonald IA, Astrup A. The effect of sibutramine on energy expenditure and appetite during chronic treatment without dietary restriction. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999;23:1016–24. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Larsen TM, Toubro S, van Baak MA, Gottesdiener KM, Larson P, Saris WH, et al. Effect of a 28-d treatment with L-796568, a novel beta(3)-adrenergic receptor agonist, on energy expenditure and body composition in obese men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;76:780–8. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/76.4.780. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Raben A, Vasilaras TH, Moller AC, Astrup A. Sucrose compared with artificial sweeteners: different effects on ad libitum food intake and body weight after 10 wk of supplementation in overweight subjects. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;76:721–9. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/76.4.721. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rasmussen LG, Larsen TM, Mortensen PK, Due A, Astrup A. Effect on 24-h energy expenditure of a moderate-fat diet high in monounsaturated fatty acids compared with that of a low-fat, carbohydrate-rich diet: a 6-mo controlled dietary intervention trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85:1014–22. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/85.4.1014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mikkelsen PB, Toubro S, Astrup A. Effect of fat-reduced diets on 24-h energy expenditure: comparisons between animal protein, vegetable protein, and carbohydrate. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;72:1135–41. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/72.5.1135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Thompson S, Ekelund U, Jebb S, Lindroos AK, Mander A, Sharp S, et al. A proposed method of bias adjustment for meta-analyses of published observational studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40:765–77. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyq248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Cochran W. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics. 1954;10:101–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–58. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Simmonds MC, Higgins JP. Covariate heterogeneity in meta-analysis: criteria for deciding between meta-regression and individual patient data. Stat Med. 2007;26:2982–99. doi: 10.1002/sim.2768. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Marklund M, Christensen R, Torp-Pedersen S, Thomsen C, Nolsoe CP. Signal intensity of normal breast tissue at MR mammography on midfield: applying a random coefficient model evaluating the effect of doubling the contrast dose. Eur J Radiol. 2007;69:93–101. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Higgins JP, Whitehead A, Turner RM, Omar RZ, Thompson SG. Meta-analysis of continuous outcome data from individual patients. Stat Med. 2001;20:2219–41. doi: 10.1002/sim.918. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Astrup A, Buemann B, Christensen NJ, Madsen J, Gluud C, Bennett P, et al. The contribution of body composition, substrates, and hormones to the variability in energy expenditure and substrate utilization in premenopausal women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1992;74:279–86. doi: 10.1210/jcem.74.2.1530952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Astrup A, Buemann B, Christensen NJ, Toubro S. Failure to increase lipid oxidation in response to increasing dietary fat content in formerly obese women. Am J Physiol. 1994;266:E592–9. doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.1994.266.4.E592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Belza A, Jessen AB. Bioactive food stimulants of sympathetic activity: effect on 24-h energy expenditure and fat oxidation. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005;59:733–41. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bosselaers I, Buemann B, Victor OJ, Astrup A. Twenty-four-hour energy expenditure and substrate utilization in body builders. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994;59:10–12. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/59.1.10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Buemann B, Astrup A, Madsen J, Christensen NJ. A 24-h energy expenditure study on reduced-obese and nonobese women: effect of beta-blockade. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992;56:662–70. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/56.4.662. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Buemann B, Astrup A, Christensen NJ, Madsen J. Effect of moderate cold exposure on 24-h energy expenditure: similar response in postobese and nonobese women. Am J Physiol. 1992;263:E1040–5. doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.2006.263.6.E1040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Buemann B, Toubro S, Astrup A. Substrate oxidation and thyroid hormone response to the introduction of a high fat diet in formerly obese women. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998;22:869–77. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0800674. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Buemann B, Toubro S, Astrup A. D-Tagatose, a stereoisomer of d-fructose, increases hydrogen production in humans without affecting 24-hour energy expenditure or respiratory exchange ratio. J Nutr. 1998;128:1481–6. doi: 10.1093/jn/128.9.1481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Buemann B, Toubro S, Astrup A. Effects of the two beta3-agonists, ZD7114 and ZD2079 on 24 hour energy expenditure and respiratory quotient in obese subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000;24:1553–60. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hansen M, Morthorst R, Larsson B, Flyvbjerg A, Rasmussen MH, Orskov H, et al. Effects of 2 wk of GH administration on 24-h indirect calorimetry in young, healthy, lean men. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2005;289:E1030–8. doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.00124.2005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Harder H, Nielsen L, Tu DT, Astrup A. The effect of liraglutide, a long-acting glucagon-like peptide 1 derivative, on glycemic control, body composition, and 24-h energy expenditure in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:1915–21. doi: 10.2337/diacare.27.8.1915. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Jacobsen R, Lorenzen JK, Toubro S, Krog-Mikkelsen I, Astrup A. Effect of short-term high dietary calcium intake on 24-h energy expenditure, fat oxidation, and fecal fat excretion. Int J Obes (Lond) 2005;29:292–301. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0802785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Raben A, Macdonald I, Astrup A. Replacement of dietary fat by sucrose or starch: effects on 14 d ad libitum energy intake, energy expenditure and body weight in formerly obese and never-obese subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1997;21:846–59. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0800494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Toubro S, Christensen NJ, Astrup A. Reproducibility of 24-h energy expenditure, substrate utilization and spontaneous physical activity in obesity measured in a respiration chamber. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1995;19:544–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Toubro S, Sorensen TI, Hindsberger C, Christensen NJ, Astrup A. Twenty-four-hour respiratory quotient: the role of diet and familial resemblance. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1998;83:2758–64. doi: 10.1210/jcem.83.8.5044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Verdich C, Toubro S, Buemann B, Holst JJ, Bulow J, Simonsen L, et al. Leptin levels are associated with fat oxidation and dietary-induced weight loss in obesity. Obes Res. 2001;9:452–61. doi: 10.1038/oby.2001.59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Klausen B, Toubro S, Ranneries C, Rehfeld JF, Holst JJ, Christensen NJ, et al. Increased intensity of a single exercise bout stimulates subsequent fat intake. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999;23:1282–7. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gregersen NT, Bitz C, Krog-Mikkelsen I, Hels O, Kovacs E, Mela D, et al. Minor effects of green tea catechins and caffeine on energy metabolism in normal weight males. Int J Obes. 2007;31:S167. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mersebach H, Svendsen OL, Astrup A, Feldt-Rasmussen U. Abnormal sympathoadrenal activity, but normal energy expenditure in hypopituitarism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;88:5689–95. doi: 10.1210/jc.2003-030870. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Vasilaras TH, Raben A, Astrup A. Twenty-four hour energy expenditure and substrate oxidation before and after 6 months’ ad libitum intake of a diet rich in simple or complex carbohydrates or a habitual diet. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001;25:954–65. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801630. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Crovetti R, Porrini M, Santangelo A, Testolin G. The influence of thermic effect of food on satiety. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998;52:482–8. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1600578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Raben A, Christensen NJ, Madsen J, Holst JJ, Astrup A. Decreased postprandial thermogenesis and fat oxidation but increased fullness after a high-fiber meal compared with a low-fiber meal. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994;59:1386–94. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/59.6.1386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Westerterp-Plantenga MS, Wijckmans-Duijsens NE, Verboeket-van de Venne WP, De GK, Weststrate JA, et al. Diet-induced thermogenesis and satiety in humans after full-fat and reduced-fat meals. Physiol Behav. 1997;61:343–9. doi: 10.1016/s0031-9384(96)00444-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Raben A, Agerholm-Larsen L, Flint A, Holst JJ, Astrup A. Meals with similar energy densities but rich in protein, fat, carbohydrate, or alcohol have different effects on energy expenditure and substrate metabolism but not on appetite and energy intake. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;77:91–100. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/77.1.91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Johnston CS, Day CS, Swan PD. Postprandial thermogenesis is increased 100% on a high-protein, low-fat diet versus a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet in healthy, young women. J Am Coll Nutr. 2002;21:55–61. doi: 10.1080/07315724.2002.10719194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Luscombe ND, Clifton PM, Noakes M, Parker B, Wittert G. Effects of energy-restricted diets containing increased protein on weight loss, resting energy expenditure, and the thermic effect of feeding in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002;25:652–7. doi: 10.2337/diacare.25.4.652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Due A, Larsen TM, Mu H, Hermansen K, Stender S, Astrup A. Comparison of 3 ad libitum diets for weight-loss maintenance, risk of cardiovascular disease, and diabetes: a 6-mo randomized, controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;88:1232–41. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2007.25695. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Astrup A, Andersen T, Christensen NJ, Bulow J, Madsen J, Breum L, et al. Impaired glucose-induced thermogenesis and arterial norepinephrine response persist after weight reduction in obese humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;51:331–7. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/51.3.331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Blaak EE, Hul G, Verdich C, Stich V, Martinez JA, Petersen M, et al. Impaired fat-induced thermogenesis in obese subjects: the NUGENOB study. Obesity. 2007;15:653–63. doi: 10.1038/oby.2007.606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Marrades MP, Martinez JA, Moreno-Aliaga MJ. Differences in short-term metabolic responses to a lipid load in lean (resistant) vs obese (susceptible) young male subjects with habitual high-fat consumption. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007;61:166–74. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Maffeis C, Schutz Y, Grezzani A, Provera S, Piacentini G, Tato L. Meal-induced thermogenesis and obesity: is a fat meal a risk factor for fat gain in children? J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2001;86:214–9. doi: 10.1210/jcem.86.1.7132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Marques-Lopes I, Forga L, Martinez JA. Thermogenesis induced by a high-carbohydrate meal in fasted lean and overweight young men: insulin, body fat, and sympathetic nervous system involvement. Nutrition. 2003;19:25–9. doi: 10.1016/s0899-9007(02)00950-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Tentolouris N, Pavlatos S, Kokkinos A, Perrea D, Pagoni S, Katsilambros N. Diet-induced thermogenesis and substrate oxidation are not different between lean and obese women after two different isocaloric meals, one rich in protein and one rich in fat. Metabolism. 2008;57:313–20. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2007.10.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Reed GW, Hill JO. Measuring the thermic effect of food. Am J Clin Nutr. 1996;63:164–9. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/63.2.164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Weststrate JA. Resting metabolic rate and diet-induced thermogenesis: a methodological reappraisal. Am J Clin Nutr. 1993;58:592–601. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/58.5.592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Murgatroyd PR, Shetty PS, Prentice AM. Techniques for the measurement of human energy expenditure: a practical guide. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1993;17:549–68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Egger M, Smith GD. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ. 1998;316:61–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7124.61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Halton TL, Hu FB. The effects of high protein diets on thermogenesis, satiety and weight loss: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2004;23:373–85. doi: 10.1080/07315724.2004.10719381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Paddon-Jones D, Westman E, Mattes RD, Wolfe RR, Astrup A, Westerterp-Plantenga M. Protein, weight management, and satiety. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;87:1558S–61S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/87.5.1558S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Lejeune MP, Westerterp KR, Adam TC, Luscombe-Marsh ND, Westerterp-Plantenga MS. Ghrelin and glucagon-like peptide 1 concentrations, 24-h satiety, and energy and substrate metabolism during a high-protein diet and measured in a respiration chamber. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;83:89–94. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/83.1.89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Food & Nutrition Research are provided here courtesy of SNF Swedish Nutrition Foundation

RESOURCES